Is player recruitment or coaching more important?
We can all list the greatest managers and coaches of all time. The tactical innovators, the era defining managers who revolutionised the way the game was played.
We can also name the players associated with those teams; Cruyff, Beckenbauer, the Dutch trio at Milan, Xavi and Iniesta.
One of the great unknowns is; is it the coach who makes the players great, the players who make the coach great, or is it a real partnership?
Looking at that great player list though then we have to ask the question; would these players have been great in other teams. And the answer is yes, they were great before and great after their periods with these managers.
Xavi and Iniesta, who are strongly associated with the great Guardiola teams were already great players. Xavi was player on the tournament in Euro 2008. They had won leagues and a Champions League under Rijkaard.
Did Guardiola change Barcelona significantly? Yes. Was this helped by the emergence of the greatest player in history and the signing of Dani Alves and Seydou Keita? Undoubtedly. Did he make tactical changes that elevated that squad. Yes. Would those same changes have suited other squads?
Would Messi be as good as he is if he hadn't worked with Pep? Impossible to say but he doesn't seem to have suffered since he left. Likewise Ronaldo no doubt benefited from working with Alex Ferguson. But I also saw Wayne Rooney play when he was 15 and he would have been one of the top players around whoever coached him.
So if the great players would have succeeded anywhere is the same true of the great coaches? Take Arsene Wenger. He managed Nancy to 12th, 18th, 19th in his first 3 seasons in management with a 29% win record. Despite this record, which was a result of constantly having to sell players, he was appointed the boss of Monaco, allowed to sign Glenn Hoddle, Battison and Hateley and promptly won the league. He was still the same manager. How many other potentially great managers have never got another chance after failure?
We probably conclude then that the great teams are a partnership between great players and the managers who elevate those players through tactics (selecting the right blend) and man management.
Great players want to play with other great players. When they get together those teams win. Put the current Lionel Messi into a midtable Premier League side and they wouldn't win the league. Put Pep Guardiola in charge of the current Everton team and they wouldn't win the league.The players aren't good enough to play his system. Put enough money into a team to get Guardiola and Messi together, along with 10 other top quality players and you probably would.
I am more certain than ever that the most important element of football is just gathering the best players you can get together, keeping them happy, and giving them tactical instructions that suit the attributes they have.
Having a defined style works well as a method of doing this. We know what the role of a Liverpool forward is under Klopp. It works with Salah and Mane in the team. It didn't work with Benteke. We know what a Barcelona midfielder plays like. This should help recruitment. You are buying players with defined roles.
But likewise we know pragmatic managers who exist who change their style depending on the options they have in their squad. I don't think Mourinho or Ancelotti have one particular style associated with their teams. They adapt to circumstances, and win trophies, so it doesn't have to be some great philosophical exercise. Sometimes bashing it long to Fellaini is the best choice to win a game.
Even Alex Ferguson doesn't have a single style. I think of the mid-late 1990s teams which were really 4-4-2 and cross heavy. Younger people probably think of the Rooney/Ronaldo/Tevez era with Carrick sitting deep. What he did brilliantly though is build squads that suited the style changes he wanted. When 4-4-2 was not getting European success he hired new coaches and signed more technical central midfielders.
So does this mean there are potentially great Klopp or Guardiola types out there with great tactical brains who don't get a chance because they never get to coach the quality of player required for these schemes to work? Very possible. Proving it is impossible though.
So what I think I'm saying is, as ever, clubs need to plan. Hiring a manager/coach with a great reputation when you have an unsuitable squad won't work without a lot of additional money for new players. There are very few, if any, examples of managers who have turned clubs around top level clubs without first signing lots of new players.
Normally if a club is doing badly it is because they don't have the right balance of players. Changing manager without changing players rarely works in the long term.
If all this seems blindingly obvious to you I would advise you to read this interview with the Ipswich Town owner Marcus Evans, clearly a bright and successful man, but for whom the concepts in this article seemed alien. Completely hands off and no consideration of long term squad planning.
It surely isn't tricky to follow simple recruitment principles like my simple checklist for signings. Just filling out something like this for each signing and being prepared to support your claims with evidence would be a step forward for quite a few clubs.
Checklist to save tens of millions of pounds.
What is the style of play you want to play?
What are your expectations in data output from a player in that position?
Explain how the potential signing fits in with that style?
Who are they replacing and why is this player better suited?
What happens to the players this new signing will move further from first team action?
Do we have players already in the squad who have the skills to complement them or do we need additional new signings?
What alternative players were considered?
What is the cost of the whole deal and is it good value for money?
We can also name the players associated with those teams; Cruyff, Beckenbauer, the Dutch trio at Milan, Xavi and Iniesta.
One of the great unknowns is; is it the coach who makes the players great, the players who make the coach great, or is it a real partnership?
Looking at that great player list though then we have to ask the question; would these players have been great in other teams. And the answer is yes, they were great before and great after their periods with these managers.
Xavi and Iniesta, who are strongly associated with the great Guardiola teams were already great players. Xavi was player on the tournament in Euro 2008. They had won leagues and a Champions League under Rijkaard.
Did Guardiola change Barcelona significantly? Yes. Was this helped by the emergence of the greatest player in history and the signing of Dani Alves and Seydou Keita? Undoubtedly. Did he make tactical changes that elevated that squad. Yes. Would those same changes have suited other squads?
Would Messi be as good as he is if he hadn't worked with Pep? Impossible to say but he doesn't seem to have suffered since he left. Likewise Ronaldo no doubt benefited from working with Alex Ferguson. But I also saw Wayne Rooney play when he was 15 and he would have been one of the top players around whoever coached him.
So if the great players would have succeeded anywhere is the same true of the great coaches? Take Arsene Wenger. He managed Nancy to 12th, 18th, 19th in his first 3 seasons in management with a 29% win record. Despite this record, which was a result of constantly having to sell players, he was appointed the boss of Monaco, allowed to sign Glenn Hoddle, Battison and Hateley and promptly won the league. He was still the same manager. How many other potentially great managers have never got another chance after failure?
We probably conclude then that the great teams are a partnership between great players and the managers who elevate those players through tactics (selecting the right blend) and man management.
Great players want to play with other great players. When they get together those teams win. Put the current Lionel Messi into a midtable Premier League side and they wouldn't win the league. Put Pep Guardiola in charge of the current Everton team and they wouldn't win the league.The players aren't good enough to play his system. Put enough money into a team to get Guardiola and Messi together, along with 10 other top quality players and you probably would.
I am more certain than ever that the most important element of football is just gathering the best players you can get together, keeping them happy, and giving them tactical instructions that suit the attributes they have.
Having a defined style works well as a method of doing this. We know what the role of a Liverpool forward is under Klopp. It works with Salah and Mane in the team. It didn't work with Benteke. We know what a Barcelona midfielder plays like. This should help recruitment. You are buying players with defined roles.
But likewise we know pragmatic managers who exist who change their style depending on the options they have in their squad. I don't think Mourinho or Ancelotti have one particular style associated with their teams. They adapt to circumstances, and win trophies, so it doesn't have to be some great philosophical exercise. Sometimes bashing it long to Fellaini is the best choice to win a game.
Even Alex Ferguson doesn't have a single style. I think of the mid-late 1990s teams which were really 4-4-2 and cross heavy. Younger people probably think of the Rooney/Ronaldo/Tevez era with Carrick sitting deep. What he did brilliantly though is build squads that suited the style changes he wanted. When 4-4-2 was not getting European success he hired new coaches and signed more technical central midfielders.
So does this mean there are potentially great Klopp or Guardiola types out there with great tactical brains who don't get a chance because they never get to coach the quality of player required for these schemes to work? Very possible. Proving it is impossible though.
So what I think I'm saying is, as ever, clubs need to plan. Hiring a manager/coach with a great reputation when you have an unsuitable squad won't work without a lot of additional money for new players. There are very few, if any, examples of managers who have turned clubs around top level clubs without first signing lots of new players.
Normally if a club is doing badly it is because they don't have the right balance of players. Changing manager without changing players rarely works in the long term.
If all this seems blindingly obvious to you I would advise you to read this interview with the Ipswich Town owner Marcus Evans, clearly a bright and successful man, but for whom the concepts in this article seemed alien. Completely hands off and no consideration of long term squad planning.
It surely isn't tricky to follow simple recruitment principles like my simple checklist for signings. Just filling out something like this for each signing and being prepared to support your claims with evidence would be a step forward for quite a few clubs.
Checklist to save tens of millions of pounds.
What is the style of play you want to play?
What are your expectations in data output from a player in that position?
Explain how the potential signing fits in with that style?
Who are they replacing and why is this player better suited?
What happens to the players this new signing will move further from first team action?
Do we have players already in the squad who have the skills to complement them or do we need additional new signings?
What alternative players were considered?
What is the cost of the whole deal and is it good value for money?
Comments
Post a Comment